Tuesday, July 10, 2007

The Depositions and the Whichard Committee, I

The depositions of Officer Ben Himan, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, ex-Investigator Linwood Wilson, and Lt. Mike Ripberger should be required reading for all members of the Whichard Committee, which is investigating the DPD’s mishandling of the lacrosse case.

Much of the blame for what Lane Williamson appropriately termed the “fiasco” has fallen on the shoulders of Mike Nifong. But the officers’ depositions reveal a department:

unable to evaluate basic evidence;

careless about basic investigative practices; and

unwilling to follow its own procedures, as part of a general disrespect for principles of due process.

Today’s post will look at the first of these items—the department’s apparent inability to evaluate evidence. Tomorrow’s post will examine the other two issues.

During his deposition, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb three times asserted that Crystal Mangum’s basic story remained consistent from the time Mangum first interacted with SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy on March 14, 2006 until the Linwood Wilson “interview” of December 21, 2006.

“From the time that she [Mangum] spoke with the SANE Nurse [in training] all the way up through December, her story didn’t really change.” (p. 94)

“That is what I was talking about as far as her story not changing from the time she was with the SANE nurse [in training] up until November. I think there were minor things, but nothing dramatic.” (p. 104)

“As soon as Nurse Levicy was able to calm her down, which didn’t take long at all, she never changed her story from that point.” (p. 185)

(Between April 6 and December 21, Mangum was never asked about the specifics of the “attacks” by any representative of either the police or of Nifong’s office—so her story couldn’t change over that 7½-month period.)

Sgt. Gottlieb first went to work in the Durham Police Department in 1987. It would seem reasonable to assume that an officer the department would keep on the force for the better part of two decades would have sufficient basic comprehension skills to understand when a story changed and when it didn’t “really change.”

Based on his deposition comments, however, Gottlieb appears to lack the ability to analyze witness statements to determine consistency—something that would seem to be a basic qualification for any police officer.

Take, for instance, the chart below, which is adapted from an item that State Bar attorney Doug Brocker presented during the Nifong ethics hearing. It examines who allegedly did what to Mangum, as well as the marital status of her “attackers”:

A green X corresponds to the story that Mangum told Tara Levicy on March 14, 2006.

A blue Y corresponds to the story that Mangum told Gottlieb and Officer Ben Himan on March 16, 2006.

A red Z corresponds to the story that Mangum provided in her April 6, 2006 official statement.

Oral

Anal

Vaginal

Married

Matt

X

YZ

XZ

X

Brett

YZ

YZ

Adam

XY

X

Z

Mangum, in short, described three quite different “attacks.” Of course, when she was asked about the “attack” on December 21, she would come up with a fourth different story. And when the special prosecutors would ask her about the “attack,” she would come up with a fifth, entirely different, story.

Given that in the three stories Mangum had different people doing different things to her; different numbers of people doing different things to her; and, actually, different things being done to her, how could a veteran of the force possibly say that “as soon as Nurse Levicy was able to calm her down [on March 14], which didn’t take long at all, she never changed her story from that point”?

Is Gottlieb similarly unable to evaluate the evidence before him in all his cases? And given these disparities, why did his supervisors not step in?

Or take the role of Kim Roberts in the “attack.” In her March 14 statement to SANE-in-training Levicy, Mangum accused Roberts of robbing her. She also described Roberts as an accessory to the rape—helping to carry her unwillingly back into the house and cleaning her up after the “attack.”

In Mangum’s March 16 interview with Himan and Gottlieb, Roberts played a passive role—neither facilitating the “attack” nor being victimized by it.

In Mangum’s April 6 written statement to police, Roberts was a fellow “victim” and, in fact, a vital witness to the “crime.” She, like Mangum, was scared by the racial epithets—indeed, was in tears. And she was torn away from Mangum and the three “attackers” at the bathroom door by three never-identified people, after which she suffered a fate unknown.

How could Gottlieb—a police officer of two decades’ experience—possibly say that the wildly contradictory versions of Kim Roberts’ role reflected a story that “didn’t really change”?

Mangum also varied in her claims about whether the players used first-name aliases. In her March 14 story to Levicy and her March 16 interview with Himan and Gottlieb, she suggested that her attackers were named Matt, Adam, and Brett—so much so that the police ran lineups with the lacrosse players named Matt, Adam, and Brett/Breck as the suspects.

By the time of her April 6 statement, however, Mangum was certain that “Matt,” “Adam,” and “Brett” were aliases. How did she reach this conclusion? She didn’t say, and the police apparently didn’t ask.

The above items, meanwhile, don’t even take into account the version of events that Mangum told UNC doctors on March 15, 2006—one day after SANE-in-training Levicy supposedly “calmed” her down.

On that occasion, she said that she was “drunk” and “felt no pain” on the night of the “attack”—even though Levicy had based much of her analysis on the fact that Mangum supposedly was in pain and was not drunk. Mangum also claimed to have been hit in the face and pushed backwards into the sink, on which she hit her head, details that didn’t appear in her March 14, March 16, or April 6 versions of events.

When asked about these discrepancies by Doug Brocker, Gottlieb—astonishingly—replied, “This is not a report that I have had time to review.”

The grand jury that indicted Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, therefore, never heard about the UNC report. Yet what the grand jury did hear from Gottlieb flowed from his inability to evaluate the evidence before him.

In response to a question from Nifong attorney Dudley Witt, Gottlieb said that he told the grand jury that “as soon as Nurse Levicy was able to calm her down, which didn’t take long at all, she never changed her story from that point.”

In making its indictments, therefore, the grand jury relied on Gottlieb’s assertion that—despite transforming Roberts from a criminal to a fellow victim, and despite alleging that different people did different things to her, and despite sometimes claiming to be drunk and sometimes not, and despite changing her mind on whether first-name aliases were used—Mangum “never changed her story” between the time she first encountered Tara Levicy to the time that Gottlieb spoke to the grand jury.

How could any fair-minded committee not be horrified by Gottlieb’s admission that his inability to evaluate evidence led to a grand jury receiving such an inaccurate portrayal of the facts of the case?

215 comments:

Given that in the three stories Mangum had different people doing different things to her; different numbers of people doing different things to her; and, actually, different things being done to her...::You just must include that sentence in the book. That is a keeper.::GP

The real question is: why is Gottlieb still a member of the Durham police force? Why hasn't he been fired? Where is attorney general Cooper and why hasn't he moved toward a criminal investigation of Gottlieb's actions? When will the sleepy Department of Justice launch a probe of the civil rights violations in this frame of the lacrosse players? When will the FBI or SNI begin a probe of the corrupt Durham police? Many questions, few answers.

For the purposes of a criminal investigation, this question is critical.

For the purposes of the Whichard Committee, however, either explanation is damning. If Gottlieb was part of a conspiracy to railroad innocent people (a plausible theory), then obviously there are major problems with the DPD.

If he wasn't, then he's a 20-year vet of the force who is utterly incompetent in evaluating evidence--so obviously there are major problems with the DPD.

What was the grand jury told? Do you just point a finger at some one and say I want him or her indicted? Do you have to be that passive or that stupid to be on a grand jury? Let's see DNA in the vagina, in the oral cavity, in the annus, on the bathroom floor, and of course, in a condom to be left somewhere on the floor or behind the door or flushed down the toliet . . . but no DNA collected anywhere to be found except DNA that doesn't match anyone on the lacrosse team and no one asking well why isn't there a report on DNA or the lack thereof being presented to us . . . members of the grand jury. Do these people lack the common sense or inquisitiveness so sorely missing in the members of the Durham Police Department or that seems to have gone missing in action? What pressure or belief system is making these people of the grand jury literally lose their minds. The Duke University Group88 have practiced immersion in systematic indoctrination for years, and it is understandable that they lack common sense except in that Lubianno wanted to get her statement out before the DNA report came back, but a grand jury made up of ordinary citizens . . . what were they told and what were they thinking?

I do not believe that Sgt. Gottlieb is incompetent at all. Nor can I imagine after having read your blog almost every day for at least 6 months that you do either. I believe that Sgt. Gottlieb's actions, like former DA Nifong's actions, were driven by malice. The malice from Nifong, no doubt, was driven by his envy of these young men. I have no idea about Gottlieb however.

The first thing that comes to mind then is that Sgt. Gottlieb, like former DA Nifong, obviously thought that they could get away with it. I would hope that every case that either of these individuals was involved in be carefully reviewed.

Actually Professor Johnson, there is an alternative way to look at Gottlieb's testimony:

1. He knew the DA he was going to have to work with was going to indict NO MATTER WHAT, so during the case he knowingly viewed the evidence as consistent with what Nifong wanted.

2. As Nifong was brought down, he was just trying to rationalize his prior actions.

This is one of many great imponderables still about this case. Gottlieb's record indicates he might have gleefully joined in a frame of Duke students. On the other hand, we know Nifong was going to indict NO MATTER WHAT. Given the treatment that Shelton got for saying he believed that Mangum was lying, it would have taken a pretty strong person to stand up and say I dont believe her.

Among the things this committee needs to figure out include:

A. is the DPD this incompetent as you suggest.

B. or is the DPD systematically corrupt as you suggest.

C. or is this an isolated case where the DPD was trying to conform to the PC always believe any rape claim view of their DA.

If it is A, then their need to be wholesale personnel changes. If it is B, there need to be wholesale personnel changes. If it is C, then perhaps the correct move is to sanction some wrong doers but not the rationalizers.

Editorial suggestion: in the book, please consider including a list of dramatis personae. I've been reading this blog more or less religiously and think I've got most of these clowns straight, but it would be a big help to anyone encountering the case for the first time at this level of detail.

If this is the behavior of members of the Durham police department in 2006/2007 toward young white men who have the wherewithall to defend themselves, imagine the possibilities of past Durham police department behavior toward young men--black or white--towards those of lesser means. Has the issue/history of on-going Durham police department behavior/malfeasance been raised?

I think you're wrong on this one. Rape is an under-reported crime, in part because of the way police treat/have traditionally treated women who report it. And, attorneys certainly don't go easy on women whose accusations are taken to court.

KC - Look, she got the hard copy of her SANE Certification on the day of the exam. Can she still have been "in training?"

==============================

Dear Tara Troll,

I'll make an exception and answer your question.

I'm sure you know given the extensive SANE background of your "wife" that professional certification boards usually mail licenses, certifications, etc. to the recipient's HOME address.

Given Levicy's own words that she arrived at work at 6:45 A.M. on March 14, 2006, she could not have had her certification in hand as you claim unless the USPS somehow started making special mail deliveries during the night.

The fact that she was could not perform Mangum's pelvic exam and had to have Dr. Manly do it, further confirms her trainee status at the time the interview and pelvic exams were conducted.

The DPD has major issues beyond the Duke lacrosse case. The liklihood of conspiracy in the Duke lacrosse case and overall corruption in general is extremely high, if not self evident. The Witchard Committee should review all DPD internal affairs complaints filed in the last several years, particularly those filed by Duke students.

Don't expect much from the Witchard Committe. After all, it is a committee. Hopefully all members of the committee seek the truth, however certain members of the committee are already there by virtue of their "agendas".

The case would be much stronger if all complaints were reviewed. An out of whack police department going after everyone in town its members considered to be without the power to defend him/herself would indeed be conspiracy. Not to mention bullying...

As if to answer questions about what was presented to the grand jury, Liestoppers has an excellent post this morning. It would seem that Duke University again violated rules of behavior in a rush to judgement. Tsk, tsk who would have guessed.

To me, one of the keys to this case would be a judge ordering the grand jury transcripts unsealed. Of course that would only work in a state that required transcripts of grand jury proceedings, one of which is not North Carolina. Prosecutors and police across the state will fight tooth and nail to preserve this quaint custom if the state legislature ever attempts to bring NC into the 21st century, but something has to change. Listen up, all NC residents: drop a line to your state representatives and senators, telling them that grand jury proceedings must be recorded if for no other reason than to keep future Nifongs, Gottliebs, and Himans from obtaining indictments with perjured testimony.

I'm not convinced that Gottlieb's performance was one of inability as much as it was unwillingness.

I think Gottlieb was on board the "it's a crock" train, but, given his penchant for hating Duke students, wasn't willing to admit that "we're fucked." The sergeant was a lieutenant in Nifong's conspiratorial army.

Commenters who declared in yesterday's post that Nifong was the only one involved and that everyone else was just doing their job are correct ... as long as they also willing to concede that Gottlieb viewed his job as being a participant in the hoax (he among others).

All of that notwithstanding, I'm confident that when Hodge becomes Chief he will be able to cure all of the inability and unwillingness of the DPD to evaluate evidence. Yeah, right.

While I have not doubt that Mark Gottlieb is not the brightest star in the intellectual universe, I have no doubt that he is part of a criminal conspiracy. He did these things not out of stupidity, but rather sheer malice and arrogance.

If Gottlieb and the others are NOT subjects of criminal investigations, and if he and his "blue wall of silence" Durham Police Officers are permitted to skate, then they might as well put a sign outside the DPD that reads: "Criminals, Inc." Indeed, should he and those other criminals at the DPD skate, then EVERY criminal case that comes out of Durham should be dismissed, as there is no way that one can trust ANY testimony that any of these liars and criminals give to a grand jury.

12:53 asked: What pressure or belief system is making these people of the grand jury literally lose their minds. Answer: Political correctness, with an especially-healthy dose of feminism.

I believe that Gottlieb was motivated by animus towards Dukies, perhaps based on envy of their SES; Nifong was motivated by ambition and greed; and the Grand Jury was motivated by political correctness, which required that they believe the woman no matter how outlandish and farfetched her story might be.

As for rape, I agree that it's probably underreported - like most crimes - however, when it is reported the good research shows that it is one of the most frequent types of false allegations.

Having read these blogs and the associated comment sections, I can draw only one conclusion....The Good Old Boys Network

I moved from NY to the Salisbury/Charlotte area of NC back in 1976 or so. I've seen it in small claims court with local merchants and I've seen it in the police department with who they hire and how they treat speeders and such.

If this railroad job was successful and Gotleib didn't help the DA, his life after that wouldn't be worth a dime. He would have been an outcast before mama's pie cooled.

Nurse Levicy got her copy afterperforming as a certified SANENurse, which means that she wasn'tsure if she was certified at thatpoint. That is a form of misrepresentation, since she apparently wasn't aware that the certification process was complete.It's not complete until she knows it's complete.

Going forward with the W Committee (regrettably, an unfortunate name that some will play off) and others, I have a question on the standards of proof that the various situations will use.

That is, faced with the kind of data that KC Johnson has presented here and in other places, the preponderance of the evidence would certainly seem to support a conspiracy conclusion. That particular result would surely have huge repercussions on DPD, Durham, etc. as it would bring civil rights, local government corruption, and other potential federal remedies into play.

I am less sure of the conclusion on a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, especially given potential pressures to settle for lesser findings.

Gottlieb and the rest ofhis District 2 buddieswere sick and tired ofanswering complaintsof Trinity Park home-owners about drunk andloud Dookies- 20 yearsworth. That does notgive them the right tocriminally frame innocentpeople. For the answerto that, you must askthe NAACP run Durhamcity council.

The adage about safety in numbers applies . Nifong thought he could get away with the hoax because there were a number of fellow travelers e.g. Gottlieb and Wilson . Nifong's agenda / goal was obvious - get elected . His accomplices had their own motivating factors . It is highly likely that Gottlieb ,for instance , expected to derive some peculiar benefit from Nifong holding the DAs office . Nifong's use of the first person plural as in "we're f - 'd " is telling . The ease with which Nifong and his gang proceeded in the early days of the case may suggest established relationships or at least some prior experience upon which to conclude they could rely on one another as participants in the hoax / crime they were undertaking . We , need a thorough objective investigation of this entire matter . If those who have the authority to initiate such an investigation fail to do so , one may wonder why they would ignore such obvious indication of corruption .

Since the DPD set up some AA folks in their own office,falsely claiming that they were running a prostitution ring,and since the DPD/Durhh had to pony-up for the DPD's abuse of twoAA women, I'd say that "C" was extremely unlikely.

"A" and "B" are not mutually exclusive; they are most likely a lethal combination, similar to when greed and stupidity are combined.

My speculation concerning the state of the DPD is as follows (and it is *only* speculation).

A fish rots from the head, and this fish is only partially rotten.

It's got a corrupt chief, and at least one corrupt captain (Lamb). It's got some corrupt cops, but also a substantial fraction of honest, or reasonably honest, cops.

I believe a conscious decision was made at the highest levels to make this case polictical, and "not about the truth any more," at which point it was transfered to Gottlieb, long-time defacto "head dirty cop" and Himan, his apprentice. I speculate that Gottlieb was promoted ahead of others to be head of the detective squad because he was dirty and they weren't, and dirty was what was needed.

But it says something good about the rest of the force that the transfer was necessary - not everyone could be safely trusted to go along with a frame-up.

It says something good about the rank and file that attempts were made to shut Shelton up. Shelton wasn't speaking publicly, just to his fellow officers. If his fellow officers were all willing to go along with a frame job, then he would have been shouting into the wind and the effort to silence him would have been unnecessary.

Notice that the conspirators didn't send out whoever was on duty that day to arrest Elmostafa - they used the "dirty tricks squad" because a randomly chosen officer might have asked "WTF?"

Finally, it's a good asign that the conspirators had to bring in Wilson to lean on Shelton. That implies that none of his fellow cops (other than Gottlieb & Himan) would be willing to do it.

I'm starting to get the impression that if you fire everyone at or above the rank of Captain, investigate anyone at or above Seargent, and keep all the patrolmen and anyone Himan or Gottlieb got promoted ahead of, you'd have the makings of a good police department.

Assuming of course you could get them an honest and competent DA's office to work with. That one will be a bit harder.

If the fiasco was the result of in-competence only( excluding the effect the pro feminist -anti white male mindset which has infected a large part of society ) , we might expect that there would have been mistakes from the DA's staff , the DPD perhaps the hospital that benefited the Lacrosse 3 . However / all mistakes , failures to comply w/ law / procedure , seemed to inure to the benefit of the prosecution . The feminist white male-bashing misadndroist ? attitude which prevails even when combined w/ incompetence should not be sufficient to inspire this fiasco . It required a complete lack of decency and ethics ,perhaps mixed w/ a little resentment and hatred , to perpetrate this innjustice .

"What was the grand jury told?"What ever Nifong instructed Gottlieb and Himan to say. It did not have to be the truth, the whole truth, or even contain any truth at all. After all, it wasn't recorded, so the officers testifying could lie with impunity.

"Do you just point a finger at some one and say I want him or her indicted?"Pretty much.

"Do you have to be that passive or that stupid to be on a grand jury?"Neither. You're working in an information vacuum. The law says that all you have to work with is what the police and/or prosecution choose to give you, which doesn't even have to be complete. In actual practice, it doesn't even have to be true, either.

The Grand Jury system is pretty much a rubber-stamping waste of time in most states, even more so in NC.

A properly functioning grand jury system would have the prosecution or cops present the best (not false) evidence they have of a crime. A GJ can then say, "If that's all you've got, then no indictment." It should be recorded to make sure that false evidence is not presented (and if discovered the indictment should be disimissed), but I don't see the need for the prosecution to present possible excupatory evidence to the GJ. Even with a properly functioning GJ, I have never put much blame on indicted defendants. I always knew that the GJ only heard one side of the story.

My old home town was a college town. I can understand the homeowners being tired of the noise and the drinking. But wait, when you have a town with as many murders and aggravated assults as Durham has, how can noise even register on the list of concerns? Where are these poeple's priorities?

Having lived on the California coast most of my life,I am aware that residents complain about college students --San Diego, UCLA, Santa Barbara, but in none of these cities do the residents want to lynch college students becasue of their race. I know that in none of these cities would residents want the PD to pay more attention to drinking and noise while not paying attention to murders and aggravated assults.

It still amazes me that so many inside people with Nifong could keep their mouths shut! There were no leaks?! No one with the courage to say, even anonymously, that what Nifong is doing is against our oath to uphold justice?!

So what exactly is it that the Whitchard committee is empowered to do? They can't arrest anyone; they can't charge anyone; they can't indict anyone; they can't fire anyone; they can't sue anyone.So they make a report saying a whole bunch of people did some bad things and didn't follow their own rules and made poor decisions. So what? Now the Feds are going to come in? Cooper is going to come back and file charges against people based upon the findings of a civilian committee with a rape couselor on it? Mayor Bell and his City Council stooges are going to fire the DPD? Chief Hodge is going to make changes? Tell me what I am missing.

It still amazes me that so many inside people with Nifong could keep their mouths shut! There were no leaks?! No one with the courage to say, even anonymously, that what Nifong is doing is against our oath to uphold justice?!

10:02 makes a good point. However, I suspect strongly that people have leaked information. For example, Mike Gaynor last year found out that Ashley Cannon told a friend that Nifong "made me lie" in the Elmostafa case. This is something that needs forther investigation.

Also, I have no doubt that Himan and Linwood Wilson have told other people things that if they come to light will expose criminal violations of the law on behalf of Nifong and his team of "investigators."

The problem is not the information that already is out there; the problem is the absolute unwillingness of state and federal investigators to look into the wrongdoing. It seems as though they are satisfied with the status quo.

As for the Durham city "investigation," I will guarantee you that it will be nothing more than a ploy for Durham's top people to declare that the city has done no wrong.

Don't you imagine that much of this is what we might call the old Duke Cash Cow practice.

For as long as anyone can remember the DPD has been handing out all forms of tickets to Duke students knowing that they will be paid...and paid quickly.

Gottlieb didn't even think twice. Just one more instance of milking the Duke cow.

And, of course the Duke cow NEVER kicks the bucket...or turns on the milk maids.

I am hoping that the defense attorneys are in contact with parents of Duke students all the way back to the 1970's so that we can see the history of milking the Duke Cash Cow and the names of those who have been colluding with DPD to make it all happen.

It just takes one Duke employee telling students or parents of students that they don't need an attorney to fight city hall.

I am especially interested in those who have been in collusion with the DPD over the years and how they work together.::GP

Duke09parent: Your point is well made; there is no need for the prosecution to present exculpatory evidence. Any prosecutor with integrity will look at exculp evidence before presenting to a GJ, and most will balance that evidence against the inculp evidence gathered in the investigation. The crux, of course, is that GJ proceedings that are not recorded are subject to people like Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan "gaming" the system. With proceedings recorded and available upon a court order, perhaps prosecutors and police would not be so prone to using GJs improperly.

" get a life " ! A cabal of people who were supposed to uphold the law fabricated a crime and brought the power of the state and the and the attendant condemnation of the mass media on 3 innocent young men and we should ignore it ? 3 boys faced long prison terms . 3 families had to pay for expensive legal services . A coach was effectively fired . All this damage and more and we should avert our eyes ?

Well spoken. And what if this has happened before when a stubborn and funded defense was not available.

God knows, our legal system needs to have chacks and balances so that this can never happen again.

And one can start by demonstrating through a legal process and related sanctions the severity of this crime....a crime that has served to undermine the notions of justice and "innocent until proven guilty," notions fundamental to our freedom(s).

Bill Anderson: No one can "make" a lawyer lie. A lawyer chooses to lie, or not to lie, and she (or he) is responsible for the consequences of that choice. If Nifong asked or demanded that Ashley Cannon lie in the Elmostafa prosecution, then she not only should have refused to do so, she should have reported Nifong's conduct to the State Bar, and to the City Council (or whatever governmental body in Durham has some oversight responibility for the D.A.'s office). There are whistleblower laws that would have protected Cannon's job if Nifong tried to retaliate by firing or demoting her. (Although why any attorney would want to keep a job in that office is a mystery to me).

If Elmostafa ever decides to file a lawsuit for malicious prosecution, Ashley Cannon won't be able to defend herself by arguing that "Nifong made me do it." Cannon is a sworn officer of the Court, and her independent ethical obligations as an attorney can't be waived just because she worked for a slimebag who told her to do something she knew was wrong.

Interesting point (but for clarity...it's the lack of red z's on April 6) in the "oral" category.

Seems to me that there would be a clear difference between taste and texture of latex (or sheeps intestine or whatever condoms are made of) and the taste and texture of human skin and body fluids. And a pro like CGM surely would surely know that difference in a nanosecond.

Yep. I agree the story changed to fit the new found (and hidden) evidence.

Begs the question: Were there any ex parte / undocumented communications with CGM?

Also, I wonder if Coach Nifong (or any of his Asst. Coaches) plays any other sport?

"the Grand Jury was motivated by political correctness, which required that they believe the woman no matter how outlandish and farfetched her story might be"

This assumes that the Grand Jury was presented with the outlandish and farfetched version of Mangum's claims, instead of the superficially plausible account that Gottlieb and the gang trotted out for reporters. Why would they tell the truth to the Grand Jury when they were lying to the press?

9:12It required a complete lack of decency and ethics ,perhaps mixed w/ a little resentment and hatred , to perpetrate this innjustice .

Well said. I completely agree. And I would say not a 'little' resentment, but a lot. Much of this is indeed fueled by the feminist, anti-white, victim-minded ideologies on display in this case, and throughout our society.

Jul 10, 2007 12:16:00 AM The real question is: why is Gottlieb still a member of the Durham police force? Why hasn't he been fired?

Beyond all that and a question for legal eagles: Let's say Gottlieb investigates another unrelated case. The defense decides to attack the evidence. Can they bring up his very public screw ups to cast doubt on the notes he took or analyis he did in the new case?

... When will the sleepy Department of Justice launch a probe of the civil rights violations

You are a very funny person :-). Our current department justice is run by someone who is an olympian version of Nifong and that leader of "Justice" works under the benighted executive guidance of someone who makes Jimmy Carter look like a paragon of competency but, unlike Jimmy, the new "Prez" detests due process since he talks to God directly (apparently he's just been getting the answering machine however). "Under" that Prez is a VP who would make Sauron himself nervous.

There's an old expression about grand juries and the DA that goes back 30+ years to when I was in grade school. It basically said that a DA could, with little trouble, get a ham sandwich indicted (sp?). All he has to do is say "we have a witness to say they were there" and "at present no proof to the contrary". I don't know if it has changed since then, but it didn't take much to manipulate GJ.

8:19 AM asked: "What is the "good" reseach & how does one tell it from the "bad"?"

The 'good,' valid peer-review is conducted and published by credible, scientifically-sound personnel associated with a credible, scientifically-sound institution or other entity, journal, etc.

As KC has amply demonstrated, this would not include any entity and journal or other publication associated with women's "studies" or other type of Angry Studies, where it is quite clear that the inmates are running the asylum. In those cases, JIJO is the rule of the day. Similarly, IMO pubs from the DOJ and other government entities, which are not peer-reviewed and are staffed with career political appointments of both the righ- and left-wing, are IMO not reliable.

"In a motion filed on September 20, District Attorney Mike Nifong states that the Duke Hoax accuser has the “ability to recall in great detail the events prior to and during” her alleged assault."LieStoppers October 30,2006

Well now. Coach Nifong's testimony (by way of the motion filed with the court) seems to indicate that CMG would know if a condom was used, at least in the "oral" part of the tale. Geez, she would be looking at it!!

But lack of DNA evidence required a much changed story. And clearly the accuser/witness had to know what the right story was. The only way that Nifong could assert that there was no DNA present because a condom was used, would be if there was no oral sodomy...Otherwise there would be the irreconcilable position of (Imagine CMG testifying): "I can remember everything in vivid detail...except the one part of their anatomy that was closest to my eyes."

So, looks like a "coach" indeed stepped in ... just in time for an indictment.

In future cases the defense can not go after Gottlieb's evidence handling or credibility becasue he hasn't been found guilty of anything by anyone except bloggers. At this point lots of people, including Cooper, know he is a liar --- but as long as he is employed by DPD, a defense attorney has nothing to go after him with. Legally, he's good as gold.

These so-called blue-uniformed law enforcement officials, all around the country, do not have to be educated individuals. They are not trained to dissect info/data in a logical fashion. They were offered conflicting stories, which on the surface (TO THEM), sound similar to the previous lie. Thus, it sounded like she could recreate the scenario with a high degree of accuracy (i.e., Adam, Brett & Matt did bad things).

They are not trained in data analysis and, frankly, are quite useless in investigating anything. If it doesn't stand out and slap them, it is irrelevant. Cops only hear what they want to hear. And if you even beging to think you can, or have any right to explain yourself - you get the batton.

These guys shouldn't be sued or convicted. Shall we detain a monkey for acting like a monkey? It is the standard for all of them. Don't ever trust a single one.

Inman 12:44"I can remember everything in vivid detail...except the one part of their anatomy that was closest to my eyes."

Funny!

Her proximity to Polyphemus, vis-a-vis the Xs and Zs (vis-a-vis being yet another pun) reminds us that DNA actually was recovered from her oral cavity.

Just not the DNA she and Coach Nifong wanted anyone to know about;the Zs only prove that she doesn't brush her teeth, since Polyphemus obviously visited her under another name, at another time, and ostensibly with her consent.

Your comments ring so true! We know of a young man (criminal justice major of all things) whose ex-girlfriend's stepfather is on local PD. The boy was at a local party when ex & friends showed up, gave him a bad time, and he left.

Was later arrested at another friend's house by seven local cops & charged w/disorderly conduct, etc.

I forget....was it Adam who broke up with Brenda? Which episode did Ashley appear in? Because she wanted Brett but there was no way Matt was letting Brett see BOTH Ashley and Brenda while Adam was dating Brenda. When Matt got involved and found Adam drunk on the beach it was all cool until Dylan spilled the beans about Lindsay's curious hookup with Brenda. Too bad Brandon moved to Hawaii, but I know he'll be back, he doesn't really want to surf, he just couldn't stand Lindsay's drama.

Did the DPD subpeona CMG's dental records to find out about those swimmy things? She might have been using a new kind of truth paste .... err, I mean tooth paste....

______________

In a more serious vein, whenever I descend from an intellectual examination of the behavior and evidence.....all I can do is recoil in digust and say:

"eewwwwwww" or some other variant if "ick" ...

I got the same feeing when I saw her mug shot.

______________________________

Frankly, (my view only -- for the record, I have known many women who were beautiful inside and/or outside and it had nothing to do with race, etc.) you'd have to tie a steak around her neck to get my dogs to play with her.

2. Gottlieb produced criminally false notes about his interview with Mangum and engaged in retaliation against the cabbie witness.

3. Wilson suborned false afidavits and engaged in retaliation against the cabbie witness.

4. Meehan conspired with Nifong to violate the NC discovery law.

5. Himan is where things get fuzzy to me. His notes seem honest. So maybe he did and maybe he did not violate the law. Maybe he understood what Nifong and Meehan were agreeing to do in a meeting he was in and maybe not?

So the question concerning the DPD is do DPD officers regularly violate the law a the bidding of the DA or to manufacture evidence against persons they want convicted or not? [Running a prostitution ring out of the DPD is a different type of corruption and to my mind less of a problem.] Did the supervisors know what was going on or did they just not pay close enough attention because the DA was on the case?

In the usual case in the US the PD are more assertive because they have investigated and have strong opinions about guilt sometime whether they have evidence or not and the DA acts as a check on the zealousness of the PD. So does that excuse the DPD supervisors for not being more on top of this?

You finished with a good question;I'll answer with what I think is a fair guess...

The most telling thing, to me, that points to a conspiracy isthe railroading of Sgt. Shelton via the "internal investigation."

Other things, too, especially the 2 hour meeting with Dr. Meehan,where he claimed to have explained the results laboriously (my choice of word, "laboriously.")It was clear enough, anyway, for NoFang to make his (alleged) comment: "we're f'ed."

Note this: "We're." Not: "I'm...." "WE'RE."

When the prospect of jail gets to 'em, the turning will be sure and the answers clear.

As a black academic and concerned citizen, I'm sympathetic to the psychology of this blog, but, I must admit, I'm concrned that many of the regular posters are using your posts to criticize affirmative action and other wonderful policies our wise government has instituted to make the black man's life more endurable.

Where do you get off accusing the professors of being on academic welfare, or only getting their jobs--for which all the AAAS profs worked very hard at--through preferential treatment?

Are you all racists, or do you just want to maintain your white-skin privileges? Black people earned their jobs at Duke. Don't forget it.

This was the most important case of their careers. Of course they read all the evidence. I would bet they also read this blog on a daily basis. (didn't Himan admit to that?)Gottlieb, Himan and Nifong are just really bad people, that in almost any other State would be going to prison.

What do you teach?I'm not one of the race-baiters that sometimes show up here, but I do wonder.

Do you think Queer Studies and professors who call themselves "Thugganiggaintellectual" are somehow desirable in modern academia? How about Mr. Grant Farred, who has repeatedly commented about"the sexual prowess of white male athletes?" (he sounds like a negative photocopy of Aryan Nations, spouting stuff about "hypersexual negroes" etc.)

Do those fit into your personal narrative of how things ought to be in academia?

Or are you Polanski on Troll-duty, performing the obligatory Troll du jour?

Grant Farred is a bona vacantia palooka, who suffers from "prowess envy."

He provokes unneccesary controversy; his writing is shallow, conceited and he uses contradictory, arbitrary terminology that even those of us without college degrees can atomize; he's an academic lightweight, competing in weight classes he can't match.

It's not because of his race that he's outmatched: it's because he's outmatched.

Don't make much of the we're rather than I'm f'ed out of Nifong's mouth. To Nifong he is the world. That was the royal "we" he was using and he meant, I'm f'ed unless I can put the blame on you guys and then your f'ed.

Your point about Shelton is interesting. Still could the DPD have realized that Mangum was lying, never charged anyone yet still examined Shelton's alledged public comments at DUMC concerning Mangum's allegation?

Himan said he felt Shelton's behavior was unprofessional. One can be both right and unprofessional just as some people, ie non police personnel, who believed Mangum while wrong did not necessarily act unprofessionally or commit a crime or a tort.

So I give some weight to the investigation of Shelton, but I would like to know exactly what he did at DUMC that night? If all he did was express doubts in front of Mangum and to other officers, then I agree with you. If he expressed doubt so outsiders could here or if he really got into Mangum's face attacking her, then maybe they were right to question him about his behavior.

KC,Thanks.I had previously investigated Mr. Farred's commentary on C.L.R. James. It was uninteresting.

It's clear from Mr. Farred's commentary that a form of Marxism is his passion.

Correct me if I'm wrong,but it appears as if Mr. Farredespouses a kind of nativist marxism,the kind one supposes that one might find in borderless cultures,an intrinsic marxism, a nostalgie de la boue.

Thank you for your cogent analysis and questions. I usually read all posts before responding to any single one, but the fact that you were noble with your identity is worthy of special trreatment.

If you would like, I will e-mail to you the interchange between me and Houston Baker -- re: the issue of race.

Of note, although I acknowledge respect for his scholarship, he has yet to respond to my recent entreaty.

I can only infer a negative.

TSI53@aol.com

(I'm sure that invites an onslaught of spam abuse but whjat the heck. Anyone else who wants to weigh in are welcom as well. I particlarly like hate speech from the left. In fact, I want to start a collection.)

When I read your comment in support of Farred I read it as "Farred is a radical who pushes the race-class-gender trinity". I don't wish to put words in your mouth. Perhaps you could tell us what other areas he has excelled in.

I agree about Oprah--but I wanted to highlight that she did not or does not need affirmative action to make her tops in her field--which includes men and women. Also how racist can we be if she is so popular? Black only make up about 13% or so of the US population. So most of her fans are white.

First, welcome and thanks for writing. You will find that commentery here is freewheeling, sometimes prickly, at times contentious. But you're already posting in that spirit.

> I must admit, I'm concrned that many of the regular posters are using [KC Johnson's] posts to criticize affirmative action and other wonderful policies our wise government has instituted to make the black man's life more endurable.

Do you think that AA played any role in setting the stage for the conduct of the Duke faculty during the Hoax/Frame? If (since) you don't, do you think that other reasonable people might? May such thoughts be expressed?

> Where do you get off accusing the professors of being on academic welfare, or only getting their jobs--for which all the AAAS profs worked very hard at--through preferential treatment?

There's a diversity of opinions expressed here--perhaps you could direct the question at a particular commenter?

Is it possible that reasonable people can be troubled by the potential for tension between "preferential treatment" and "merit" (even granting, arguendo, that *all* AAAS professors "worked hard" to get their jobs)?

> Are you all racists

No.

> or do you just want to maintain your white-skin privileges?

No.

But thanks for asking.

Because I have trouble watching video clips, I wasn't aware that Prof. Grant Farred was black. But I disagreed with much of what I have read of his writings on the Hoax/Frame and other subjects. I don't think he's very perceptive.

Would it make me more or less of a racist to suddenly respect Prof. Farred's insights, now that I know something about his skin tone?

Secretary Rice is fantastic!Amazing! I agree with your comments. Her knowledge of Russia and Russian is brilliant.

I've always wanted to see her run for President. She's got a strategic mindset in a world fullof politicians. History generally favors the best strategians - (until they begin to fall in love with their own merde, or until they face a Russian winter like Napoleon.)

Rice has charm and poise, knowledge and understanding.I'd pay a lot more to hear her speak than I would to see a sporting event (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

As a black academic and concerned citizen, I'm sympathetic to the psychology of this blog, but, I must admit, I'm concrned that many of the regular posters are using your posts to criticize affirmative action and other wonderful policies our wise government has instituted to make the black man's life more endurable...

Black people earned their jobs at Duke. Don't forget it.

David Parks ---------

Well Mr. Parks, which is it? Got your jobs through the WONDERFUL POLICIES OF OUR GOVENMENT or earned it?

No, they are not all "stupis," but certainly they showed a lack of common sense, goodwill, and decency, if not criminality, in their behavior and attitude during a very difficult time, behavior that did not reflect well on them, their scholarship, nor the institution that employed them. In a word they lacked common sense, and their street smarts seemed to go out the window. They have appeared void of intelectual discernment and had difficulty reflecting any reality that did not fit their own preconceived notions of the way of the world. They reverted to the thuggery that has propelled them into academia and encouraged pot-bangers and castrate signs and essentially invited into Durham armed steet thugs of a New Black Panther party as if the old one wasn't direspictable enough all the while not remembering history or really caring about living together with others. No you aren't "stupis" you are beyond that. You have to be "intelligent" to do what theydid.

OK. Let's take as a given that Secretary Rice is knowledgable in the Russian language and not perfectly fluent.

How the pluperfect heck does that have anything to do with her intellect, her understanding of world affairs and issues, or her ability to cogently articulate a policy position.

Please...give me a well thought out and an articulate response. I'm listening. (I just had a flashback...pot bangers ..."castrate"...an advertisement ... 88 ..."listening"...I'm sweating now from hormonal imbalances.)

Let's assume your observations are correct. But in the darkest momments of the Revolution, most sunshine patriots were also ready to run. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that Washington's polpularity rating, if based on the uniformed or worse, the uninformable, would have been far worse than our modern George.

And are you suggesting that any modern President had a shining group of ethical and intellectual giants as members of their whole administration?

Sorry, I can't get there from here. But, with all due respect, I like the woman and her style and her manner.

What's the saying about imitation is the the most something or other of flattery?

Sowell in Wonderland“Nations are like men in that they prefer a fuss made in their behalf to real services rendered.” Although de Tocqueville said this back in the 19th century, it may help explain why the black vote today is so overwhelmingly for the Democrats, when Democrats have done so little good for blacks and so much harm.' - Thomas Sowell

KC ... but Condaleezza Rice is a symbol of the good that can come about if one, OF ANY GENDER OR RACE, works hard and adheres to a singular ideology or disciplined thought process.

The DPD conspirators (and let me be specific, most in the DPD are surely not complicit) fail because they are evidently not of an articulated ideolgy that supports their behavior and actions...an ideology that can withstand any scrutiny whatsoever. At least CR says what she believes in or what she wants to believe.

"...when Abraham Lincoln was considering nominees to that Court, he said, “we cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it.”- Thomas Sowell

and the inverse...

"When we ask Brodhead, the Duke Administration, and the Gang of 88 race baiting bigots what they CURRENTLY do, they should answer us, and when they don't, we should despise them." - No Justice, No Peace

I continue to be mesmerized by KC's attention to detail. The munificence of each post reads like an investigative chapter exposing the intricacies of this Hoax...peeling it layer by layer like an onion.

As someone else suggested, he should think seriously about being a journalist.....

I am sorely dissappointed that anyone on this blog is a "tool," for if that is the case, then in the street-wise and quite disrespectful vernacular of the day, they are nothing but those who deliver the "truth paste."

GAG.

Disgust. Dissemblance. Disingenuity. Disrespect. Disengage. Disrepute. Dis ... Okay I could go on, but you get them point.

Yes, "mac", I did read your initial issuance of skepticism. Good call.

You know, I enjoy some of Polanski's humor and his cartoonish little skits; however, what I am vehemently against is the way he has used names of others here to post porno or something else really out-of-the-realm of that person whose identity he has stolen, essentially.

He's done that to me in the past and it isn't a humorous situation.

Once he posted as "Black Panther" and then proceeded to try to make everyone believe it was I using that moniker.....and also he has posted crude things and signed my name.

If he could refrain from that kind of anti-social behavior, then his humor would eclipse his other annoying traits.

this was posted at Liestoppers (I found it postedat the link below):http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/070710

"It appears that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) protected key card records of Duke University students which District Attorney Mike Nifong sought by subpoena 0n May 31, 2006 were actually provided to the Durham Police Department, and in turn to the ex-DA, on March 31, 2006. Although Nifong had access to the records for months, he pretended to seek them with his subpoena and then, incredibly, argued vigorously for their production in a July court hearing.

"A review of the case notes and State Bar deposition of Sgt. Mark Gottlieb reveals that the private key card records were obtained from Duke University without a court order and in violation of FERPA. Gottlieb's deposition also reveals that the information provided illegally by Duke University contributed to the indictment of Collin Finnerty while leading directly to the indictment of Reade Seligmann. The key card date, illegally obtained and purposefully misconstrued by Sgt. Gottlieb, offered the only 'corroboration' presented to the Grand Jury of Seligmann's presence at the scene of the imagined crimes."

DURHAM -- Incumbent City Councilwoman Diane Catotti filed for re-election Monday, becoming the first of Durham's sitting officials to add her name to the fall election ballot.

Catotti is seeking her second term. She is a health policy consultant and a former president of the liberal People's Alliance, one of the city's three major political groups.

In office she has specialized in land-use and environmental issues. She is a member of the Joint City/County Planning Committee, the group of council members and county commissioners who supervise work on local zoning regulations and policies.

Catotti is one of three council incumbents whose terms are up this year. Another, Eugene Brown, has said he will run for another term but has yet to file. The other, Thomas Stith, is an all-but-announced candidate for mayor.

The only other candidate to file with the county Board of Elections is David Thompson Jr., a 35-year-old auto mechanic. Two other men, David Harris and Farad Ali, have signaled interest in running as challengers but have yet to file.

Non-duke participant / non-Duke Dad / non-Duke Mom: Can you spell "keeping up" with regularity? Do you dribble when you speak. (If so, don't play basketball.) Do you know how to spell "IQ"...try it...its only two letters.

On the other hand, you are clearly not from UNC....they spell "Duke" ..."Dook"....It's an ingrained genetic Carolina thing.

DURHAM -- Two rape cases have been rejected by the Durham grand jury in recent days -- while an Orange County rape conviction was overturned by the state Court of Appeals -- prompting some to think the Duke lacrosse scandal might have fostered a recalibration of the scales of justice.

"A lot of people have always felt the grand jury was a rubber-stamp machine for the District Attorney's Office. That's been the reputation," John Fitzpatrick, president of the Durham Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said Monday.

"But maybe they are now asking more questions and demanding more information from police officers," Fitzpatrick added. "They're probably looking at things with a more meticulous eye. At least, I hope they are. That would be a good thing and would help restore confidence in the system."

Because grand jury proceedings are secret, it can't be determined precisely why Durham panelists cold-shouldered an attempt by the District Attorney's Office to indict Cameron Tyler Crabtree for second-degree rape on June 25, or why they did the same on July 2 for a second-degree forcible rape charge against Craig L. Fuller.

It is known only that, for whatever reasons, grand jurors determined there wasn't "probable cause" to return an indictment in either case.

Probable cause means there are grounds to believe a crime was committed and a given suspect did it.

In rejecting the rape charges, grand jurors defied an old lawyers' quip that any modestly competent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

The reason for that oft-quoted saying is simple. Only prosecution evidence is presented at grand jury sessions. Suspects and their lawyers cannot attend or submit anything in their favor.

Still, Assistant District Attorney Jan Paul said grand jurors may sometimes reject cases merely because the wrong charges are submitted.

When the grand jury spurns a case, it is called a "not-true bill."

"It doesn't mean no crime happened," said Paul. "It just means that maybe we should have used a different, more appropriate charge."

Paul drew no connection to the Duke lacrosse case, in which former District Attorney Mike Nifong got three players indicted on charges of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer last year, only to have the case collapse due to lack of evidence and bring Nifong's career crashing down with it.

State Attorney General Roy Cooper declared the three defendants innocent in April, dismissed all remaining accusations against them and upbraided the now-disbarred Nifong for prosecuting them in the first place.

The lacrosse case outcome aside, grand juries should ponder all cases seriously and not casually rubber-stamp paperwork submitted by prosecutors, according to Paul.

Others believe there could be a link between the lacrosse affair and the recent not-true bills: a new wariness that perhaps causes grand jurors, if only subconsciously, to give sex-offense allegations more thorough scrutiny than before.

"I certainly hope all jurors, especially after the Duke lacrosse case, will take their jobs seriously and question things thoroughly," lawyer Mark Edwards said Monday. "They shouldn't automatically assume that information presented by the police and the government is true. Sometimes it isn't."

In the lacrosse case, major felony charges passed grand jury muster despite the now-known fact that there was virtually no incriminating evidence beyond the statement of an accuser who turned out to be inconsistent, contradictory and unbelievable.

Meanwhile, much more is known about why the Court of Appeals last week overturned an Orange County rape conviction against Alvaro De Jesus Valdez Hernendez.

The reversal apparently had everything to do with a question of evidence and nothing to do with the lacrosse affair.

However, there was one similarity between the Hernendez and lacrosse cases: a purportedly unbelievable accuser.

The appellate court said Steve A. Balog, the 2006 trial judge, erred by refusing to allow three defense witnesses -- two police sergeants and a court interpreter -- to express opinions that the alleged victim in the Hernendez incident was a generally untruthful woman.

Hernendez subsequently was found guilty of second-degree rape, assaulting a female, communicating threats, damaging personal property, making harassing phone calls and interfering with the accuser's telephone line. He was sentenced to between eight and 10 years in prison.

Balog had decided there was "absolutely no foundation" to allow the two sergeants and the interpreter to tell jurors about the accuser's credibility as they saw it.

Acting on a written brief from Durham lawyer David Wicker, the Court of Appeals disagreed.

It said the three witnesses had personal knowledge of the woman and had formed opinions "as to her character for untruthfulness" -- opinions that should have been heard by the jury.

"As such, we conclude that the exclusion of the opinion testimony of these witnesses was in error," the court added.

Because of the he-said, she-said nature of the case, there was "a reasonable possibility" such testimony might have won Hernendez an acquittal, appellate judges wrote.

Oh,,,but they mean so well.... What the heck is the "Liberal People's Alliance". In Durham is that the equivalent to the other contender's profession...auto mechanic? Gimme a break. Are Durham voters so stupid as to fall into the "moniker means all" act. Geez.

Michael-There's an unusually useful thread about it at TalkLeft, too. Tortmeister's involved.

It seems that the law does not allow individuals to sue for damages (so even if the 3 didn't know about the keycard records handover t they lost nothing by not including it in their danegeld^H^H^H^H^H^H damages calculations).

But what the law does allow for is that, if a pattern of disregard for student privacy is shown, an institution can become ineligible to receive Federal funds. Ouch!

So - was the key-card thing the only time Duke handed over LAXer information that should have been kept private? ( And does it count as one incident or 47?) Was this the first time DUPD has ever illegally handed over student records?

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review